At 1:52 PM +0000 6/19/97, Clayton Bartholomew wrote:
>It is hard for me to make sense out of Acts 5:29
>according to D (original hand). The clause order seems
>to put the wrong words in the wrong mouth.
>
>The original hand of D inverts the clause order of
>Acts 5:29 (not in NA27) so that: PEIQARCEIN DE QEO
>MALLON H ANQRWPOIS appears first, before Peter starts
>to speak. This puts PEIQARCEIN DE QEO MALLON H
>ANQRWPOIS (and/but to obey God rather than men) in
>the mouth of the [High] Priest which seems kind of
>strange.
>
>Following the punctuation of Ropes who places the
>period after ANQRWPOIS, the whole verse reads:
>
>PEIQARCEIN DE QEO MALLON H ANQRWPOIS. O DE PETROS
>EIPEN PROS AUTOUS . . .
>
>Is there some other way of dealing with this reading?
>Can the clause PEIQARCEIN DE QEO MALLON H ANQRWPOIS be
>construed as part of the following speech of Peter
>when the words are in this order?

The reading in D is

PEIQARCEIN *DEI* QEWi. . .
It is necessary to obey God. . .

isn't it? If D has PEIQARCEIN DE QEO. . . as you have it written above, it
is a really strange reading.

At any rate, it should not be construed as part of the following speech of
Peter if Ropes' puntuation is right. If you are correct about the clause
order (I don't have access to the text of D right now), then the reading in
D has the priest implying (or treating as a given) that Peter's words come
from man (Jesus), not from God. He is trying to silence Peter by warning
him, 'We must obey God rather than obeying [this] man [Jesus].' The
assumption behind his statement is that he IS obeying God, while Peter is
obeying Jesus.